non-intrusive mpfm case study: challenges and way forward nel sea workshop 2016.pdf ·...

Non-Intrusive MPFM Case Study: Challenges and Way Forward

Authors:

Anish Gupta, Dahlila Kamat, Nor Aisyah Borhan, Ratan Singh, Bahrom Madon PETRONAS Carigali Sdn Bhd

Hairul Razi, Mohd Zaffarin Abdul Ghaffar, Sciensterra Sdn Bhd and Andrew Jamieson, Dmitry Gazin, David Whittingham, Neftemer Ltd

PRESENTATION OUTLINE

• Introduction and About the Technology

• Pilot Objectives & Success Criteria

• Field-P Pilot

• Field-S Pilot

• Lessons Learnt

• Way Forward

• Conclusion

CHALLENGES

© 2010 PETROLIAM NASIONAL BERHAD (PETRONAS)All rights reserved. No part of this document May be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without

the permission of the copyright owner.

4

• Guessimated / History Matched Readings

• No Well Test DataWell Testing Facility

• 1 well taken once a month on test

• 8-12 hours testing / well

• No continuous monitoring for Well behavior

Well Testing using Test Separator

• Challenge for high GVF conditions and Gas Lifted environment

• Costly in terms of Installation and Logistics Well Test using MPFMs

THE TECHNOLOGY



5

• About the Meter

• GVF: 20-80%;

• Gamma Ray principle

• Provides the mass as output

• Mainly application in oil Wells

Previous Case Histories

• Developed in Russian Oil fieldenvironment

• Trial in Brazil and few other locations

DETECTOR

LEAD SAFETY SHIELD

GAMMA SOURCE HOUSING

MOUNTING BRACKET

FLOWLINE

LOCKABLE SHUTTER

S. No. Characteristic Neftemer Other MPFMs

1 Modification in Line Not required Require – Pressure test, Flushing, Line modification, extra hardware, etc.

2 Weight and Foot-print Less Huge and includes more detailed planning, Logistic and more modifications

3 Clamp-On Type Yes No

4 Production Loss during Installation (on existing wells)

No Yes

5 Installation Time Max. 1 day Min 2-3 days




• Field-P Pilot

• Field-S Pilot

• Lessons Learnt

• Way Forward

• Conclusion

PILOT OBJECTIVES

1. To test the performance of non-intrusive MPFM at various flow conditions

and identify the flow conditions wherein the non-intrusive MPFM can be

used with reliable accuracy

2. To verify the claim of NEFTEMER of the Measurement Accuracy of the

MPFM: +/- 10% on defined GVF ranges.

3. Analyse the economic value in comparison to a fixed meter

4. To test the logistics involved and installation ease/flexibility of this MPFM for

use as portable well test equipment.

5. To find its applicability as a continuous well production monitoring tool.



7

SUCCESS CRITERIA



8

S. No Criteria

1 Safe to operate due to Radioactive nature of equipment Radiation Exposure < 10mSV/year

2 Continuous monitoring of density for all the GVF ranges

3 Continuous monitoring of Oil, Well and Gas flow rates for wells with GVF < +/- 80%

4 Ease of Installation and movement from one place to another (less than 1 day)

5 MPFM must be acceptable as a continuous well production & monitoring tool




• Field-P Pilot

• Field-S Pilot

• Lessons Learnt

• Way Forward

• Conclusion

PLANNING & EXECUTION – Candidate Selection

• No. of Wells MPFM Installed: 2

• GVF ranges: From 74 to 91 %

• Out of 7 wells, Only 1 well not suitable for Installation due to space limitation

Well#1 Well#2 Well#3S Well#3L Well#4 Well#5 Well#6

Monitoredwith Neftemer

NOWell not flowing

NOWell not flowing

YES NOSpace

limitation

YES NOSpace limitation

NOWell not flowing

GVF (%) 89 91 81 82 86 85 74

Installationfeasibility

YES YES YES NO YES YES*Modify existing

bracket

YES

Pipe Schedule XXS XXS XXS XXS XXS XXS XXS

• Main Challenge was the pipe wall thickness i.e. 17mm (Earlier manufacturer claimed only max 10mm)

• Stretched the Limits (by Project team):- Conducted in-depth investigation, suggested in design of detector and

finally achieved recordable reading up to a max of 22mm thickness plate

RESULTS – Well#3S

Plot shows 24 hours data

• Large density variation – from 100 kg/m3 to 650 kg/m3• Liquid variation from 1250 to 2000 bpd (~23% variation)• Discontinuous Readings – though trend was visible

Liq Flow Rate; Gas Flow Rate; Density; Water Cut

Avg Liq Rate: 1600 bpd

Avg Liq Rate: 1300 bpd

RESULTS – Well#3S

Test 2 Test 3 Test 4 Test 5

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Liq

uid

Rat

e (b

bl/

day

)

Injected Gas Rate (mmscfd)

Gas Lift Optimization - Verification

• A Gas Lift optimization

exercise was conducted

to test the sensitivity of

meter and prove the

future usage

• (Red Dot) was the

actual Gas Injection

Rate which Field P field

was injecting

• The exercise verified

with actual relative

values that the current

Gas lift injection was an

optimum injection

RESULTS – Well#4

Plot shows 24 hours data• Max Liq: 1850 bpd; Min

Liquid: 1470 bpd; Variation: ~25%

• Trends - %age error increased with increase in GVF

Test 2 Test 3

1.69 2.23

Test 4

Gas lift rate (mmscf/d) 1.20

0

1

2

3

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

1 2 3 4 5

GV

F an

d %

age

err

ors

Test#

Gas Injected vs Gas Produced GVF @ Line conditions

%age error

Summary of Results– Field P

1. Radioactivity Concern – ok

2. Liq, Oil and Gas flow rates available for GVF ranges < 85%

3. Equipment feasible to be installed in 5 out of 6 locations

4. With increase in GVF, the relative error for gas reading increased

5. Multi-Rate Gas Lift Injection test for both the wells conducted and was successful in terms of

relative results

6. Due to non-availability of test separator, liquid readings and accuracy of meter cannot be

verified

Conclusions:

• Effective for Wells with GVF < 85%.

• Good diagnostics for Gas Lift Optimization

• Provided good sensitivity in flow of well regime which indicates a very good diagnostic tool

• With more data and calibration in place, can be effectively used as a well test tool for Field P

and other similar platforms




• Field-P Pilot

• Field-S Pilot

• Lessons Learnt

• Way Forward

• Conclusion

PLANNING & EXECUTION – Field S Candidates

5T 10S 15S 6L 30T 89L

GVF (%) 98.31Above Range

96.32Above Range

91.17Above Range

96.77Above Range

99Above Range

94.43Above Range

Liquid Flow Rate Range in blpd OK (<1000) OK (<1500) OK (<1500)

OK (>3000) OK (<1500)

Installation feasibility i.e. Vertical Length available in m

OK (1.80) OK (>1.0) OK (1.8) OK (0.87) –managed to

install

OK (>1.0) NO (0.70)

No. of Wells: 5 (as per Installation feasibility)

GVF ranges: From 91 to 98% i.e. all values exceeded the nominal working range of the meter

Field S RESULTS

• Multi-Rate Test – Well#6L• Neftemer was recorded to ensure the sensitivity / response of the Meter with changes in fluid

condition

Date & TimeCurrent GLI

(MMscfd)Density reading (kg/m3) Remarks

20-Sept-14 @ 1030hrs 0.83-0.86 -50-150

21-Sept-14 @ 1000hrs 1 -100-150 Foam

21-Sept-14 @ 2030hrs 0.54-0.64 450-150

22-Sept-14 @ 0130hrs 0.59-0.61 0-150

Optimum gas lift injection need to be determine for optimum production of the system Neftemer can be used as an effective tool for well diagnostic

Summary of Results– Field S

1. Liq, Oil and Gas flow rates not available for GVF ranges > 96%

2. Gas Flow rates not available for 90% < GVF < 96% .

Conclusions:

• Not effective for High GVF wells.

• Good diagnostics, if able to record relative liquid rates depending on flow

regimes

Summary of Results

S. No Criteria Field S Field P

1 Safe to operate due to Radioactive nature of equipment Radiation Exposure < 10mSV/year √ √

2 Continuous monitoring of density for all the GVF ranges √ √

3 Continuous monitoring of Oil, Well and Gas flow rates for wells with GVF < +/- 80% x N/A

4 Accurate Readings for wells with GVF <=80%No wells with GVF <

85%

No reference Measurement due to

separator malfunction

4 Ease of Installation and movement from one place to another (less than 1 day) √ √

5 MPFM must be acceptable as a continuouswell production & monitoring tool x √




• Field-S Pilot

• Field-P Pilot

• Conclusions & Lessons Learnt

• Way Forward

Conclusions & Lessons Learnt

• Gas lifted wells do have high variation interms of liquid flow rate

• Experience in handling and installation of radioactive equipment

• Gas lift optimization process in wells went well

• Additional trial needed to close the “Accuracy” Gap

Conclusions

• A close monitoring of well test parameters especially of water cut and FTHP is required

• Reference values for Initial installation should be approx. reliable

• Availability of proper test separator could have resulted in better pilot results

Lessons Learnt

WAY FORWARD

1. Additional Trial to close the study for Accurate Measurement

• To test the meter for a last trial in a facility with • Gas Lifted Wells

• GVF < 90%

• Proper Separator measurement

• If possible, facility with experience of MPFMs

• Identified Fields – Plan to be commenced :• Field X– Details below

Platform GVF Max

GVF Min

AvgGVF

A 100% 85% 95%

B 93% 40% 74%

C 93% 73% 85%

D 94% 63% 75%

E 95% 83% 91%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

A B C D E

Field-X GVF ranges

GVF Max GVF Min Avg GVF

THANK YOU

PVT Measurement

1. PVT measurement not taken into account during this pilot

2. PVT is used is to account for pressure – volume effects mainly for Gas rates

3. As mentioned in slides, the algorithm is much dependent on flow regimes and calibration, once

the actual rates are known, the calibration factor is expected to consider PVT corrections as

well

Calculations: GVFs and Line Standard Conversions

MPFM records at Line Temp (TL) and Pressure (PL)

QoL QwL QgL𝐺𝑉𝐹𝐿 =

𝑄𝑔𝐿

𝑄𝑔𝐿 + 𝑄𝑜𝐿 + 𝑄𝑤𝐿

𝑄𝑜𝑆 =𝑄𝑜𝐿

𝐵𝑜𝐿

𝑄𝑤𝑆 =𝑄𝑤𝐿

𝐵𝑤𝐿

𝑄𝑔𝑆

= (𝑄𝑜𝑆 𝑥 𝑅𝑠𝐿) +𝑄𝑔𝐿

𝐵𝑔𝐿

From PVT Data of the crude

QoS

QwS

QgS

non-intrusive mpfm case study: challenges and way forward nel sea workshop 2016.pdf ·...

Documents